Diagnostics and air pollution damage appraisals: Are we being sufficiently careful in appraising our forest health?

  • J. M. Skelly
Wirkungen von Luftschadstoffen auf Gehölzpflandzen


Numerous forest surveys are conducted annually on a worldwide basis. These surveys have multiple purposes which may include estimates of forest growth and productivity, community structure, biodiversity appraisals and/or forest condition (health) appraisals as examples. Many of these surveys are then utilized by others in developing reports of a more generalized nature. Hence, data collected without attention to detail may become lost in averages and the data itself can more easily become susceptible to accidental or directed misinterpretations and manipulations. Such may very well be the case in surveys previously conducted to determine forest condition (health) and subsequent misinterpretations about generalized symptoms being ascribed to air pollutants as their sole etiological agents. Terms such as forest decline and ‘Waldsterben’ and ‘neuartige Waldschäden’ have become erroneously associated with air pollutants (acid rain) as the primary etiological agent.


Acid Rain Sugar Maple Forest Condition Forest Health Forest Decline 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Diagnose und Einschätzung von Schäden durch Luftverschmutzung: Sind wir sorgfältig genug in der Beurteilung der Gesundheit unserer Wälder?


Zahlreiche Waldbestandsaufnahmen werden jährlich weltweit durchgeführt. Sie dienen vielseitigen Zwecken, so z. B. Waldzuwachs- und-ertragsschätzungen, Feststellung von Struktur und Artenreichtum der Lebensgemeinschaft Wald, und/oder Wald- (Gesundheits-)zustandserhebung. Viele dieser Bestandsaufnahmen werden dann von Dritten bei der Erstellung mehr allgemeiner Berichte praktisch ausgewertet. Damit können Daten, die ohne Beachtung von Einzelheiten erhoben wurden, in Durchschnittswerten verloren gehen und die einzelnen Daten selbst leicht Gegenstand zufälliger oder gezielter Fehlauslegung und Zweckentfremdung werden. Das kann durchaus der Fall sein bei früheren Wald- (gesundheits-)zustandserhebungen und nachfolgenden Fehleinschätzungen verallgemeinerter Symptome, die ausschließlich der Luftverschmutzung zugeschrieben wurden. Ausdrücke wie Rückgang der Gesundheit des Waldes, “Waldsterben” und “neuartige Waldschäden” wurden fälschlich mit Luftverschmutzung (saurer Regen) als Hauptursache in Verbindung gebracht.


  1. Anon., 1992: Earth Almanac: Even in spring, leaves fall—some forever. Nat'l Geog.,181, 4, 140.Google Scholar
  2. Anthony, T., 1992: Mona Lisa of forests dying? Johnstown Tribune-Democrat. Oct.11, p. E3.Google Scholar
  3. Barnard, J. E; Lucier, A. A.; Johnson, A. H.; Brooks, R. T.; Karnosky, D. F.; Dunn, P. H. 1989: Changes in forest health and productivity in the United States of America. NAPAP SOS/T 16. Wash., D.C.Google Scholar
  4. Bruck, R. I.;Robarge, W. P.;McDaniel, A., 1989: Forest decline in the boreal montane ecosystems of the southern Appalachian mountains. J. Water, Air, Soil Pollut.48, 161–180.Google Scholar
  5. Chamberlin, T. C., 1897; Studies for students: The method of multiple working hypothesis. J. of Geology V, 837–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dull, C. W.; Ward, J. D.; Brown, H. D.; Ryan, G. W.; Clerke, W. H.; Uhler, R. J., 1988: Evaluation of spruce and fir mortality in the southern Appalachian Mountains. USDA-For. Serv. Prat. Rept. R-8-PR-13. Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  7. Egerter, D. E., 1989: Ghost moths and dead spruce. Amer. For. July–Aug. 54–57.Google Scholar
  8. Grehan, J. R.;Parker, B. L.;Wagner, D. L.;Rosvsky, J.;Aleong, J., 1992: Root damage by the conifer swift moth: A mortality factor in montane red spruce regeneration. For. Sci.38, 611–622.Google Scholar
  9. Hall, J. P., 1990: ARNEWS Annual Report 1990. For. Can. Int. Report ST-X-1.Google Scholar
  10. Innes, J. L.;Boswell, R. C., 1987: Monitoring of forest condition in Great Britain. Forestry Commission Bull. 98. Farnham Surrey, ENG.Google Scholar
  11. Jacobson, J. S.;Heller, L. I.;Yamada, K. E.;Osmeloski, J. F.;Bethard, T., 1989: Foliar injury and growth response of red spruce to sulfate and nitrate acid mist. Can. J. For. Res.20, 58–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Joslin, J. D.;Wolfe, M. H., 1988: Responses of red spruce seedlings to changes in soil aluminum in six amended forest soil horizons. Can. J. For. Res.18, 1614–1672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kandler, O., 1992: Historical declines and diebacks of central European forests and present conditions. J. Env. Tox. and Chem.11, 1077–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Leonard, G. L.;Tobi, D. R.;Parker, B. L., 1991: Spatial and temporal distribution ofKorscheltellus gracilis larvae (Lepidoptera:Hepialidae) in the Green Mountains, Vermont. Env. Entom.20, 371–376.Google Scholar
  15. Lucaschewski, von I.;Mettendorf, B., 1988: Waldschadensituation 1988 in Baden-Württemberg, Nr. 20, 506–510.Google Scholar
  16. Lynch, J. A., 1990. Spatial and temporal variability in atmospheric deposition overview: A Pennsylvania prospectus. Proc., Atmospheric Deposition in Pennsylvania: A Critical Assessment. Environmental Resources Research Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. September 11–14, 1989, 50–62.Google Scholar
  17. Magasi, L. P., 1988: Acid Rain National Warning System: manual on plot establishment and monitoring. Can. For. Serv. Int. Rep. DPC-X-25. Ottowa.Google Scholar
  18. Miller-Weeks, M; Millers, I.; Cooke, R., 1988: Description of crown symptoms on red spruce (Picea rubens, Sarg.) and balsam fir (Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.) in the NE U.S. Proc. Symp. Effects of Atmos. Pollut. on Spruce and Fir. For. in the Eastern U.S. and the FRG. USDA-For. Serv. Gen. Techn. Rep. NE-120.Google Scholar
  19. Millers, I.; Allen, D. C.; La Chance, D., 1992: Sugar maple crown conditions improve between 1988 and 1990. U.S. Dept. Agric. For. Serv. NA-TP-03-92.Google Scholar
  20. Millers, I.; La Chance, D.; Burkman, W. G.; Allen, D. C., 1990: North American sugar maple decline project: organization and field methods. U.S. Dept. Agric. For. Serv. Gen. Techn. Rep. NE-154.Google Scholar
  21. Ministry of Ag., CR., 1991: Forestry of the Czech Republic. Branch of Forestry, Prague.Google Scholar
  22. Nash, B. L.;Davis, D. D.;Skelly, J. M., 1992: Forest health along a wet sulfate/pH deposition gradient in northcentral Pennsylvania. J. Env. Tox. and Chem.11, 1095–1104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Quebec Ministry Agriculture, 1986. Maple Decline. Conseil des Productions Vegetales du Quebec, AGDEX 300/637. Quebec City, CAN.Google Scholar
  24. Rykowski, K., (Undated) Will the forest survive? Ministry of Env. Prot. Natural Resources and Forestry, Lomianki, ul. Baczynskiego, Pol.Google Scholar
  25. Rykowski, K., 1991. The state of forests in Poland, 1991. Ministry of Env. Protection, For. Res. Inst., Lomianki, ul. Baczynskiego, Pol.Google Scholar
  26. Saxena, V. K.;Stogner, R. D.;Hendler, A. H.;DeFelice, T. P.;Yeh, R. J.-Y.;Lin, N. H., 1988: Monitoring the chemical climate of Mt. Mitchell State Park for evaluation of its impact on forest decline. Tellus 41B, 92–109.Google Scholar
  27. Schopfer, W.;Hradetzky, J., 1984: Circumstantial evidence: Air pollution is the determinative factor causing forest decline. Forstw. Cbl.103, 231–247.Google Scholar
  28. Schutt, P.;Cowling, E. B. 1985: Waldsterben, a general decline of forests in central Europe: Symptoms, development and possible causes. Plant Disease69, 548–558.Google Scholar
  29. Siccama, T. G.;Bliss, M.;Vogelmann, H. W., 1982: Decline of red spruce in the Green Mountains of Vermont. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club109, 162–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Simini, M. J.;Skelly, J. M.;Davis, D. D., 1989: Ozone concentrations monitored in remote and forested areas of northcentral Pennsylvania. Phytopathology79, 1220.Google Scholar
  31. Skelly, J. M., 1989: Forest decline versus tree decline—the pathological considerations. Env. Mon. and Assess.12, 23–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. —, 1991: A closer look at forest decline in Europe: A need for more accurate diagnostics. pp. 223–241 in:Majumdar, S. K., et al., ed. Air Pollution: Environmental Issues and Health Effects. PA. Acad. Sci., Easton, PA.Google Scholar
  33. Skelly, J. M., 1992: A closer look at forest decline: A need for more accurate diagnostics in:Manion, P. D.; LaChance, D., Forest Decline Concepts. Amer. Phytopathological Society Press (In press).Google Scholar
  34. —, 1992: Global perspective on forest health issues: An attempt to discern fact from fiction. J. Env. Tox. and Chem.11, 1049–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tobi, D. R.;Leonard, J. G.;Parker, B. L.;Wallner, W. E., 1992: Survey methods, distribution, and seasonality ofKorscheltellus gracilis (Lepidoptera:Hepialidae) in: the Green Mountains, Vermont. Env. Entom.21, 447–452.Google Scholar
  36. Wagner, D. L.;Parker, B. L.;Wallner, W., 1987: Red spruce decline in New England: Are swift moths the culprits? Vermont Sci.11, 1 and 4.Google Scholar
  37. Wagner, D. L.;Tobi, D. R.;Parker, B. L.;Wallner, W. E.;Leonard, J. G., 1989: Immature stages and natural enemies ofKorscheltellus gracilis (Lepidoptera:Hepialidae). Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer.82, 717–724.Google Scholar
  38. Wagner, D. L.;Tobi, D. R.;Wallner, W. E.;Parker, B. L., 1991:Korscheltellus gracilis (Grote): A pest of red spruce and balsam fir roots (Lepidoptera:Hepialidae). Can. Ent.123, 255–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wallner, W. E.; Wagner, R. L.; Parker, B. L., Tobi, D. R., 1991: Bioecology of the conifer swift moth,Korscheltellus gracilis, a root feeder associated with spruce-fir decline, pp. 199–204 inBaranchikov, Y. N., et al., eds. Forst Insect Guilds Patterns of interactions with host trees. U.S. Agric. For. Serv. Gen. Techn. Rep. NE-153.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Blackwell Wissenschafts-Verlag, Berlin 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. M. Skelly
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plant Pathology, 210 Buckhout LaboratoryThe Pennsylvania State UniverstiyUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations